Posted on 09/04/2007 6:08:36 AM PDT by madprof98
No, it’s not.
The only race under discussion is HUMAN.
Ditto yours . . . race does NOT figure into the problem, unless we’re including canine, equine, feline, etc. marriage stats.
“Human” is our race.
I’m not seeing a whole big pile of unmarried men stepping up to be the dad of their kids these days. I’m seeing a lot more “baby daddies”.
Why? Is Tom Brady not human?
Come on everyone,lets be real.
Have you ever listened to the conversations of most of these single mothers and really understood what their priorities are in life?
If you have, then it should be quite obvious WHY no one wants to marry them.
Still doesn’t make it OK to pump out babies and receive welfare.But to expect men to MARRY these women?
NO WAY!
. . . and where did they come from? They came from "baby daddies." And from mothers who accepted "baby daddies" rather than holding out for fathers.And why did the mothers do that? Because they came from the girlfriends of "baby daddies" themselves - and because they, like their mothers, see the same incentive structure and the same dearth of fathers to marry.
The point is that simply judging those mothers and their boyfriends is not enough. It is valid as far as it goes, but it is no substitute for looking at the actual problem as experienced by the people who are living in it. It is certainly no substitute for a clear-eyed look at the economics of the situation. And that is apparently exactly what Bloomberg was attempting.
Of course studying the problem is a waste of time; you would learn more from listening to Thomas Sowell for as long as he would talk to you than you are ever likely to learn by research.
Fine sentiments. Tell that to La Raza or the Black caucus. Why do you think we collect official data on the basis of race and ethincity? Why do we have affirmative action based on race and ethnicity?
I’ve been reading some affirmative action information and can tell you, legally, anything that has a disparate outcome for different groups (race, sex, ethnicity, orientation, etc) is inherently considered discriminatory.
Since there is a “disparate outcome” for the number of out-of-wedlock births for certain minority groups,
talking about it is racist.
(note: this is a sarcastic analysis of the assinine legal precedents of “discrimination” politics)
I have no idea why the government does what it does.
I only know that the biology books classify “human” as our race.
You’re missing my point.
Our race is human.
Unless you include other races - dogs, cats, birds, horses, whatever - in your study, the outcome cannot be racist.
Ethnically biased? Bigoted? Discriminatory? Sure. Racist? Scientifically impossible.
You make more money as a single parent in California...a check for each kid.
fine, you have a pedantic nit to pick. I really don’t care about it. pick away.
I refuse to be labeled something incorrect.
There are far too many correct labels to apply to me.
People, emphatically including Rush Limbaugh, rant about the lack of courage of conservatives to confront liberals. But the problem is not merely lack of courage so much as it is lack of understanding of the real source of the strength of "liberalism."The source of the strength of liberalism resides, essentially exclusively, in the acceptance by the people of the assumption that journalism is objective. That assumption is baseless. In the founding era, newspapers were openly partisan. They also tended to localism, since they had no independent means of obtaining regional and national and international news. But think of what it meant that the papers were openly partisan. Jefferson and Hamilton each sponsored a newspaper to support their own policies and trash the other's policies. There really was little to choose between those newspapers and party propaganda organs.
Fast forward to the era of the penny press and the telegraph, and newspapers had different market conditions. They had the technology to acquire news from the nation and indeed the world, and they - and their competitors - had high-speed presses with a large bandwidth to sell. But no individual newspaper could afford to operate a national and international news gathering and distribution operation - so they joined forces in the Associated Press.
The AP obviously had enormous clout in its ability to talk to the entire nation. So it had to protest its objectivity, and affect to be objective. And from that acorn the mighty oak tree of "journalistic objectivity" has sprung. Not from any rational reason why it should be believed, but merely from raw propaganda power of men desperate to promote it. And a public faced with the novelty of the situation, which wanted to believe it could buy "the world" of "what was going on" for a penny.
All the propaganda can be countered with a few simple points:
The first quotation makes the point that the claim of "journalistic objectivity" certainly requires proof.
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam SmithThe second quotation makes the point that such proof would have to demonstrate not merely that journalistic reports were consistently true, but that they constituted a full telling of the truth.
And the third quotation makes the point that the portion of the truth which journalism in fact elects to tell emphasizes the failings of people upon whom the public relies to get things done. And that, in criticizing and second guessing the corporations, the military, and the police, journalism "objectively" promotes the governmentism which it pleases so-called "objective journalism" to call "liberalism" or "progressivism" - and that "liberalism" or "progressivism" opposes both liberty and progress.
BTTT
Who files for 2/3 of divorces again? Hint: not men.
CIC,
I noticed the historical perspective. It serves your arguements well. I hope you publish someday.
I tend to think strategically regarding the most efficient way to expose the fraud of journalism and sway public opinion.
What has been tried to date IMO has stalled without completing the mission. What’s needed is a very public fight in the middle of the room.
Tom Delay the other day on MSNBC got it exactly right when he challenged on air their one sided promotion of Democrats.
Every appearance by a conservative on an MSM outlet should include a challenge to the interviewer regarding subject related clear and indisputable “bias” (I hate that inaccurate label, prefer “ad copy” as you are aware) reporting practices. Followed by the allegation, “Your network based on clear evidence, are nothing more than the DNC marketing arm”
Books about it, web sights documenting the fraud will do nothing until the media are confronted in front of their audience.
The MSM will mount a counter attack, but the idea is to shake the thinkers loose and provide them a path to the truth.
Delay really nailed it.
E01
CIC,
I noticed the historical perspective. It serves your arguements well. I hope you publish someday.
I tend to think strategically regarding the most efficient way to expose the fraud of journalism and sway public opinion.
What has been tried to date IMO has stalled without completing the mission. What’s needed is a very public fight in the middle of the room.
Tom Delay the other day on MSNBC got it exactly right when he challenged on air their one sided promotion of Democrats.
Every appearance by a conservative on an MSM outlet should include a challenge to the interviewer regarding subject related clear and indisputable “bias” (I hate that inaccurate label, prefer “ad copy” as you are aware) reporting practices. Followed by the allegation, “Your network based on clear evidence, are nothing more than the DNC marketing arm”
Books about it, web sights documenting the fraud will do nothing until the media are confronted in front of their audience.
The MSM will mount a counter attack, but the idea is to shake the thinkers loose and provide them a path to the truth.
Delay really nailed it.
E01
I don't know what biology books you are referring to, but most of them classify human beings as belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens with homo being the genus and homo sapiens the species.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.